Is democracy is the last hope for the peace in the world? What is the ideal form of government?

Is the democracy the last hope?when ever there is any anarchy or de-stablisation in any country United Nations,Security council and some country of G8 calls for democracy and free-fair election.BUT there are some democratic countries in which the basic rights are not given to the citizen any democracy fails there like Pakistan and some other countries,Specially in third world countries.There are some countries in which dictatorship is running in a full swing and enjoying their basic rights,Like in past Turkey Mustafa Kamal Pasha leads turkey to the edge of progress and development Like in Cuba Fedel Castro Like in North-Korea.SO what more needs to be done to remove the demerits of democracy and WHAT steps should be taken to improve and flourish it in 3RD world countries OR we have to think for any other form of government

This recent conversation may interest you.
Democracy is just another form of government. It has advantages over the others that make it better in many ways, at the cost of other aspects. Its not a magic solution to anything.

Idealizing it as a key to some sort of utopian vision is if anything, counterproductive.

The answer depends on human nature, which is a big mystery at this point in human development.

Eventually, probably centuries from now, the study of the human species might advance to the point when we can raise our children to behave properly and there will be no need of laws governing our behavior.

For certain, democracy is not the ideal form of government. Its flaws are many and severe. However, representative government is the best form of government yet invented. The Chinese government provides for advancement based on merit, a feature that might improve representative government.

I believe that we could accelerate the development of new forms of government, by trial and error. Allow some small cities to try out new forms of government. The popular governments will result in cities that grow, and the other ones will change or disappear. If a small city votes to try out the Chinese method, there must still be a legal way for the citizens to change the government, but it should also be able to establish its own bill of rights. I am not suggesting that all cities should be able to do this. These cities would clearly be exceptional experiments.

In the USA many people no longer consider our government as an experiment. Instead, many people idolize democracy. That is a huge mistake. That attitude is completely unrealistic and impedes progress.

Oct 10 2013:
While it is perhaps true that other sorts of government ought to be given a fair try, it was also either Churchill or someone I know misquoting Churchill who described democracy as "the worst form of government except all the others." I would argue (and have other places where character limits are less stringent) that such a statement generally holds true. The issue of how to resolve the problems of democracy seems to be best solved by actually democratizing democracy, which would probably end up in a situation awfully similar to that described in earlier comments about a government-less soicety. When we describe corruption and the disrespect of basic rights, what we are really talking about are undemocratic practices. We are talking about things which are inherently against the fundamental premise of democracy (decentralized power shared among the populace). Let us assume that all of these were removed, what would government look like? To be honest, I haven't the faintest idea; nowhere in history do we see anything of the sort, not even in the oft-cited Greek variety. Moving on, in order for democracy to truly flourish in less developed places, the same sort of things must occur (though globally as the local conditions in such places are simply too poor for actual flourishing without global input and interaction). I would argue that democratized governance does not currently flourish in such places because, if one does an honest cost/benefit analysis, leaders have more incentive to act undemocratically than otherwise. A discussion of an ideal form of government, however, is essentially foolish and useless, both for the utopian problem noted below and as such an idealization assumes, by its very nature, that actual and real ("on the ground") conditions have no influence on what is best for a certain group of people, in a certain location, at a certain time. Those are of paramount importance (hence why Pasha/Ataturk managed to do some good while other less or none).

Oct 4 2013:
i would strongly oppose the notion that castro helped cuba, or that kim the current of north korea would help korea. that is a side note.

the real comment is this: asking which form of government helps is similar to asking if you want to be punched in the head or in the belly. there are cons and pros to each, but it is just choosing the lesser evil. what we actually want is the lack of government. a society based on cooperation and mutuality.

what is the government? anyone tried to define the term, or explain it in a way that visiting space aliens would understand? it is an eye opening experience if you take it seriously.

TED Conversations Archives

We’ve spent three years sharing Ideas, Debates and Questions — and learned a lot.

Now we’re going on hiatus to retool and rebuild from the inside out for a better conversation experience.